The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D had a relationship for thirteen years. In 1999 they purchased a residence, which they owned as joint tenants and made their home. In 2000 they engaged to marry, and in 2003 they purchased a pedigree dog for $1500, which they registered with the American Kennel Club reporting that they both owned the dog. D decided to end the relationship. D wanted to purchase P's interest in the property. P signed a deed transferring her interest in the house to D. When she vacated the residence she took the dog with her. P left one of the dog's jerseys and some photographs behind. P let the dog visit the house and eventually when P went on vacation, D watched the dog and refused to return it. P sued D. The trial court's pretrial ruling foreclosed P's claim for specific performance. P testified that D verbally agreed to let her have the dog. D did not deny the express agreement but implied that no such agreement had been made. P stated that she wanted the dog agreement in writing but that D assured her that she could trust him. The court found P's testimony to be 'extremely' and 'particularly credible.' The court concluded that D took unfair advantage of P by giving her only $45,000 for her interest in their residence. The court awarded P $1,500 for the dog. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.